[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20221121234023.0a8d3a89bf26ad463cf11ad4@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 23:40:23 +0900
From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Chris Mason <clm@...a.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Florent Revest <revest@...omium.org>,
bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...gle.com>, markowsky@...gle.com,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@...wei.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/1] BPF tracing for arm64 using fprobe
On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 11:09:21 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 01:06:08PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > How do I know that a function return was modified by BPF? If I'm debugging
> > something, is it obvious to the developer that is debugging an issue
> > (perhaps unaware of what BPF programs are loaded on the users machine),
> > that the return of a function was tweaked by BPF and that could be the
> > source of the bug?
>
> Have it taint the kernel if something is overridden ;-) Then we can all
> ignore the report until it comes back without taint.
Hmm, indeed. BTW, error injection should set that too.
Thanks,
--
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists